Abstract

An Effort to Explain the Process of Body Formation

Notes: The abstract is not originally written by the author of the paper, but consists of
an effort to condensate the content in a shape common to scientific abstracts, performed by a
son of his. He himself was due to his unprecedented decease unable to fulfil the publication of
the paper.

ABSTRACT

In this paper a model for body formation is proposed, to a large extent founded upon a
biologically extended concept of ‘altruism’, as contrasted to ‘selfishness’. Though originally
selfish, cells seem to be able to act, as if were there an altruistic option, available at events of
deep crisis concerning the very survival of a society, as its destruction seems inevitable.
In the paper a special focus is put upon the properties of slime molds, but initially the
situation for prisoners in a concentration camp during a night formation in a severe cold
weather is described. Facing the common threat to freeze to death, they begin to unify as a
group, paradoxically feeling joy and strength being together, in spite of the killing cold.
External threats, that disable the individuals of a population from functioning, seem to release
supreme, thus far hidden, functions of the individual cells, which enable them to together
form a new body, on a higher existential level. However, once formed, these in turn begin to
exert selfishness. Hence, it is possible to draw the conclusion that there exists a balance of
forces between properties defined as altruistic and properties defined as selfish.
In connection with the process, during which cells under outer pressure unify with other cells,
thereby attaining a higher state, they lose their selfishness and begin obeying the orders given
by the new body. This is thoroughly being analysed in the paper.

Chapter 1

Sometimes it can happen that one suddenly is able to see a solution to an old problem that
may have existed latent within the consciousness for a long time. That occurred to me, as I
some years ago read ‘The Informed Heart’ by Bruno Bettelheim [1].

The problem at hand was: Which are the necessary preconditions for cells to form a body?
In the book he describes among others [2] an episode in a concentration camp, where the
author himself was imprisoned. It was that description which for me became the starting point
to the association chain that momentarily created a new coherence within the problem, I had
earlier only occasionally been studying, though without any result.

The episode Bettelheim decribes was about a nocturnal formation of prisoners during severe
cold. After twenty prisoners having got frozen to death, the order disrupted. Open resistance
was impossible and it was even impossible to protect oneself. The prisoner regarded as an
individual was unable to treat this problem successfully. Therefore the individual had to
disappear within the mass. The threats by the guards became increasingly ineffective, as the
mental attitude of the prisoners hade changed. Instead of protecting themselves they became
depersonalized. It appeared that the abandonment of all individual existence, thus becoming a
part of the mass, in some way offered better opportunities to survival, though not for the
individual, at least for the group.

In spite of the disastrous situation, the prisoners on an individual basis felt free from fear, but
powerful on a mass basis. Therefore they were even happier. They did not bother, if the
guards shot them. The reign of death and terror was broken. As that stage had been achieved,
an almost orgiastic feeling of happiness was spreading among the prisoners.
When they finally abandoned the hope for their further survival, it became easier to act
heroically and help others.

After fifty prisoners had died, the torture was interrupted. The almost orgiastic feeling of
happiness they have felt disappeared and accordingly their fear returned. Every individual
prisoner was now in a relatively more secure state, but he had lost the feeling of security he
felt while merged in the mass.

- * -

The decisive observation I made was that the prisoners accidentally lost their individual fear
of death and felt invulnerable. But to be mentioned is also the helpfulness and loyalty that
accidentally put the community higher than the individual person. They belonged for a while
to a community and acted as one “body”.

It was when I had proceeded that far in my reflexions, I recalled a review in Swedish daily
‘Dagens Nyheter’ (i.e. ‘Today’s News’) a long time ago and the related debate in the
newspapers. The book was ‘The last enemy’ by Richard Hillary [3].

I had not read the book myself, it was about ‘the Blitz’ over London, but through the review I
got an impression about the fellowship of the pilots and their experience of constituting an
inseparable unity. The few, who finally survived were unable to return to their daily life and
felt still being a part of the dissolved fellowship. The reason why the following newspaper
debate remained in my memory after such a long time was that nobody of the debaters wanted
to understand, or were just unable to understand the statements in the book.

Perhaps they had neither imagination nor sufficient experience in order to profit by the
connections, or else it was in conflict with their psychological or philosophical ideas at that
time. Just in that way I remember it.
That memory accordingly constituted a kind of contrast to the description by Bettelheim
concerning a quite similar situation.

The final association followed thereafter. Many years ago I had read the book ‘Territorial
imperative, a personal inquiry into the animals’ origin of property and nations’ by Robert
Ardray [4]. One detail had apparently remained in my memory. That was about a kind of
unicellular organisms that during favourable circumstances was uniting into some kind of
body. What thereafter happened to that body I am unable to recall.

By these three elements; the prisoners, the pilots and the unicellular organisms, was for me
momentarily created a whole new perspective concerning the evolution.

In order to better imagine how the body formation would work, and within a body as well, I
made an intellectual experiment by assuming that the cells were equipped with human
feelings and reactions.

Imagine, how the cells must have to feel in order to be able to cooperate with each others and
form a body, or on the whole constitute a part of a body. They must feel as either the prisoners
or the pilots. In order to together be able to build a superior organism with an identity of their
own, it will be required that their own respective organism and individual aspirations
disappear and are substituted by a total focus upon the superior body. Their lives are now a
part of the life of that body, and its life and fate is in turn inaccessible for observation by the
individual cell. Hence, I imagine, a total altruism is a prerequisite to a body formation.
The individual cell in a body is exposed to the forces, which is regulating the life and
development of the compound body. The world of the cell was earlier open in the process of
reacting with the environment, now it is confined to its position within the body, and the cell
‘knows’ principally nothing about the outer world. The messages from the body to the cell
may by that be conceived as instincts, incomprehensible but absolutely imperative.

- * -

Those were my first spontaneous reactions within the subject. During the work and especially
after I had got access to the description by Ardray, I was impelled to revise my apprehension.
I understood that Ardray was treating a special case of body formation, but due to that matter
of fact very usable. The whole body formation namely takes place openly.

The concept altruism is usually being used about our conscious reactions. Here it is a matter
of almost molecular chemical reactions and energy transformations.

- * -

Organisms, also cells, have a fundamental property – selfishness. That property is a
prerequisite for surviving in the struggle for existence. One can rarely imagine selfish beings
to function altruistically, and the very concept of altruism is therefore in conflict with the
doctrine of evolution. In order to allow selfish beings to form a body it is therefore required a “change of mind”, or a change of attitude. That was the basic thought in the idea, whose
origin I have described above and it appeared to be the necessary innovation, which enabled
the development of new perspectives upon the defined problem. Altruism does not exist
within the doctrine of evolution. But that does neither describe the formation of a body. Hence,
it may not be excluded that altruism nevertheless exists in connection with the formation of a
body.

Hence, altruism - according to the definition of mine - includes that, as far as I can conceive it,
it has its definite position in the development.

It arises in situations, when a development is moving towards cohesion of cells to a body, an
organism of higher order, and with an identity of its own.

- * -

The prerequisite for the genesis of my idea, i.e. my way of judging the description by
Bettelheim, consisting of my memory of the pilots and the cells respectively, may very well
be more or less misjudged by me, but that doesn’t matter. The main issue is that these
judgements worked catalytically. They forced me to conceive a whole new context.

What I thus far have described was only the startling point for my thoughts. The new trains of
thought put my fantasy into work, which in turn led to a further development of the idea in
different directions.

Concerning my method of description I must emphasize that, as I am not a biologist, less an
amateur, I neither can nor want to use terms and concepts I can not master. That means an
inevitable limitation. For me the main thing is to give an account of my trains of thought, as
clearly as possible.

Chapter 2

The book of Robert Ardrey, ‘Territorial imperative, a personal inquiry into the animals origins
of property and nations’[4], is treating the concept ‘territory’ extensively by different aspects
and through many examples, most predominantly among mammals and birds.

He describes among others territories of the perspective “society of outward antagonism,
isolated and unified by the defense of a social territory” [7], and one example is the
unicellular beings, which are called slime moulds [5].

The slime mould species he is describing was discovered in 1935 and researchers have since
then been cogitating over theirs behaviour. Their history is presumed to go back as far as to
the first billion years after the origin of life.

These fungi are of equal size with leucocytes and they exhibit a similar shape. They feed
themselves through bacteria in humid soil. Every third or fourth hour they divide and the
population is therefore increasing rapidly.

When the population has consumed the nourishment within its territory, the cells are entering
into the second phase of their life cycle. They begin to form societies. Around a founding cell
the others are clustering in a growing lump and cling on to the others, until they have formed
a wrinkly “slug”, which is visible to the eye. Now this society of individuals is beginning to
behave as one organism and it is even moving in the direction towards heat or light. Finally,
one part of the society is differentiating and begins to form a peduncle, which they make stiff, using a secretion. Thereafter the others are crawling up to the top of the peduncle, where they
are forming a sphere of spores, the seed of a new generation.

That is the way of living that has been modelled about one billion years ago and that still is
working.

One aspect of the social behaviour of the slime moulds (Myxomycetes) has been able to
explore on a laboratory level. That is what Ardray defines as a society with an external
hostility, which is founded on the basis of a defense of a territory of a society.

One scientist has, according to Ardray, demonstrated that the size of the society territory at a
certain species of slime moulds is constanr and he has proven that has been suspected for
some time: that the means by which a society is being defended is a gas, which is repelling
other groups to a certain distance, while simultaneously attracting the members of the clan.
An American scientist has made an extraordinarily interesting observation, which is showing
that the cells are able to communicating. When they were put into a Petri dish, they were
distributed as evenly in their first phase of life, as if they were repelling each others. (We
would prefer to name it individual distance). When the time for gathering had come, it
appeared to be, as if a signal had been given, obeyed by everyone.

Further one observation: the amount of fruit-bearing societies within a certain area is
independent of the amount of individuals. In other words: if one had a thousand cells within
an area, they could form ten groups, but if one had ten thousand, they would still form ten
groups. The societies were in some way a function of the space, not of the amount of
individuals.

Chapter 3

Free cells are individuals, which obey certain conditions, they reproduce themselves, they are
reacting directly upon the environmental pressure, they bring nourishment, the are selfish and
they have an identity of their own etc.

The same conditions were fulfilled also be free bodies and one could probably think of a
suggestion of a further higher level, even though it appears that the “technical” opportunities
to function as an independent individual are restricted. In this respect I think of insect
societies. Their identity as individuals seems to have restricted opportunities to develop and
function.

Some elementary characteristics are accordingly returning on all three levels, in spite of the
otherwise huge differences To designate cells individuals maybe all does not agree to do, even
less to designate insect societies individuals. As a common definition for these both and for
bodies I therefore choose the expression “biological individuals”.

- * -

Ardrey is dealing with the territory behaviour of the slime molds and is classifying it as a
society with an external enmity, founded upon a defense of a society territory. But the
definition concerns only the development until the signal. The description of the continuation
in phase two is namely showing a phenomenon of a completely different kind, according to Ardrey “a society built up by individuals, who are behaving a one sole organism”. It is even
moving towards heat or light and is emitting spores.

A body-like society is something completely else than a territory. I on my part am interpreting
the course of events in phase two as the forming of a body of the simplest kind.
The territory of the slime mold is differing from other examples of territories in the book by
Ardrey, in that the territory is treated as a necessary preliminary stage in the body forming,
which will follow. It is not only a gradual difference between phase one and phase two at the
slime molds, it is a specific difference. The slug is something completely different than the
territory of phase one, just as the insect society is something completely than a collection of
unorganized insects.

- * -

The starting point for the following scenarios is the situation that can be assumed to have
existed with the slime molds in the beginning of their development a billion years ago, short
before the next phase in their development, phase two. Let us assume that they had developed
so far that they were living in populations, having territory boarders approximately in the way
Ardrey has described with respect to phase one.

The situation for one cell in the population is about similar with that of free cells, which are
living without belonging to a territory population and may very simplified be described,
according to the following figure.

The picture is referring to the forces that are affecting the external existence of the cell, i.e. in
its physical property as a biological individual. The arrows are numbered 1 to 4 and indicate
the direction of their influence. I have here left out of account the effects of mutations.
The activities of the cell are driven by the reproduction and the supporting of life which is to
be regarded as the motor of the system It is reacting upon changes in the environmental
pressure (1), which implies changes in the gene set (2) and hence affecting the cell (3). The
cell may in exceptional cases affect the environment (4). The environmental pressure is a modifying element in the system. The genes are passive instruments and are lacking a direct
contact with the environmental pressure.

Regarding phase one there are some issues that deserves mentioning.

The behaviour of the cell is similar to that of other free cells. The life within a population of a
territory also implies that the cell has some properties, which are related to the common
population. For example: Everyone is emitting a gas that is repelling other groups until a
certain distance, while simultaneously attracting the clan of its own.
As a hypothesis I propose the following scenario: A catastrophe situation is presumed to arise
for the first time, caused for example bye the gas barriers, which have become too strong to be
broken. The highest desire of the cell is to be moved to better hunting grounds, but it is being
stopped by these gas barriers. The cell is forced towards a collapse and is unable to react upon
the environmental pressure. It seems to be an insoluble situation; its selfish opportunities to
survival and reproduction are being eliminated. The situation thus arisen can be illustraded
using the following figure:

When the catastrophe has achieved certain intensity, a momentary reaction will take place,
which is setting the cells into an altruistic state. The visible result is that all the cells are
gathering in a lump and commonly begin to form the slug.

The cells are thus momentarily being transferred from selfishness into altruism, while
simultaneously a kind of superior function seems to arise that enables the cells to cooperate in
order to attain the goal they are individually unable to achieve.

The state after the transformation to phase two can be illustrated accordingly:

The figure is showing that now the slug is the biological individual and that is affected by the
environmental pressure. The individual cells are apparently no more selfish but altruistic and
governed by the superior function and hence, are in phase two no more biological individuals.
Through the interaction of the superior function with the environmental pressure it has finally
arisen a new kind of body, but very incomplete.

A catastrophe situation of some kind seems according to the hypothesis of mine to be a
prerequisite for phase two to be able to arise.

One would judge the description by Ardrey that at first a cell overcomes the inner resistance
against a change and in this connection is launching the momentary process in which the cells
become altruistic and which leads to the forming of a body on a higher level than the cells.
This body is ruled by a superior function that takes over the responsibility for the reproduction
of the cells.

Body forming does not differ from other phenomena within biology. In that process the
selfishness of the individuals are removed and she is able to act against her sound, selfish
instincts. It is a question of a transfer between two completely different states, two different
levels of life.

Thanks to the superior function the cells are being liberated from their selfishness and from
the struggle for their personal existence, which ought to mean a relief, and that relief seems to
release forces that have been bound by the struggle for existence. That struggle has now been
taken over by the superior function. That, as I have expressed as “relief”, is a part of the
necessary “change of attitude” of the cells, which I presumed in the introduction.

The situation can be compared to that of Bettelheim’s prisoners. Their unbearable situation
brought finally about a spontaneous, though occasional change of attitude with them. An
occasional superior function, “the mass” of Bettelheim’s prisoners, relieved from the
prisoners their personal worries and they became a strong experience of euphoria, of relief.
They were hereafter no more bothering for their own fate, but had the powers to help others.
A reaction with that meaning may have occurred on the simpler cell level.

“The mass” is a word that can give wrong associations. “The superior function” is better; it
shows that it is a question of an individual of higher order that is functioning thanks to the
altruism of the individual cells.

In the common sense the slug is no body. It has been formed by free cells, which thereafter
are no more being divided. [8] It does not have the opportunities of a normal body, an almost
unrestricted ability to chemical control, DNA control, as the biologists are describing it,
through which a coherent system of tissues and functions gradually are being formed. The
superior function can in the case of the slime molds hardly affect anything else than the
behaviour, and that circumstance has defined narrow borders for the development
opportunities of the slug. The weak development of its identity thus depends on the fact that
effective means for management of the functions of the cells thus are impossible and that the
cell division of cells has ceased.

The development of the slug takes place through successive changes in the behaviour of the
cells in connection with the interaction of the superior function with the environmental
pressure. The more appropriate types of behaviour have a higher survival value for the slug
and therefore the behaviour of the cells are being changed with time, and hence the form of
the slug and its behaviour. On can imagine that in the beginning there was a formless cell
lump, which called by a signal broke the gas barriers of its neighbours.

A consequence of that development is that all cells must master all necessary types of
behaviour; they must be able of functioning at all the places within the slug.

Chapter 4

The description by R.Ardrey of the development of the slug is apparently completely
unobjectionable, but on further consideration one finds unexplainable phenomena. It is a
question of a process that has to result that the forming of a body on a higher level than the
cells of which it has been formed.

Neither phase one nor phase two means in itself any problem. It is a question of an amount of
selfish cells, which are living in territories and in phase two it is has reference to a very simple
body. Neither of those phenomena consists of anything new, but it is the transformation
between them, that is unexplained.

What requires an explanation is the presence of the latent altruism that according to my
assumption has developed within the territory and which is being activated in connection with
the rise of the level and that has to result the forming of a body on a higher level. How has
this higher level been able to develop in a territory population consisting of selfish cells and
what kind of force has caused the rise of level?

Darwinism ought to imply that cells regarded as individuals only can have selfish properties
and that they not shall be able to act in an altruistic way. It can also be expressed that
biological individuals not by their own force are able to act altruistically and thus transform
into a higher level with an unselfish cooperation.

These selfish cells thus behave after the level rise in a way that has not been predicted in the
theories. One may again make reference to Bettelheim’s prisoners. Was their change of
attitude something that was accomplished by their selfishness, something that they
intentionally and consciously decided to carry out, and if it was not so, from where came their
change of attitude?

Altruism according to my definition in chapter 1 has reference to that which arises in
connection with the forming of a body. This kind of altruism means that the cells are being
sacrified when the body dies, except for the cells of reproduction. Through the mediation of
these the complete genetic matter can be transferred to the next generation.

- * -

I return to the situation I described in the preceding chapter and that was illustrated by three
pictures.

That course of events seems to be in conflict with the principles of Darwinism, there arises
altruism. That altruism is clearly demonstrated in the description by Ardrey and can not be
denied.

In the state being established after picture 2 the history ought to have reached an end and the
experiment turned out to be unsuccessful, at least if one sticks to what Darwinism is teaching:

“Yet Darwinian theory advocates no higher principle beyond individuals pursuing their own
self-interest – i.e. the representation of their own genes in future generations.” [12].
In the catastrophe situation I have assumed, apparently some unknown force has affected the
territory, thus creating a latent altruism that finally has brought about the momentarily transfer
from the lower state of life to a higher.

Here is embedded a difficulty for the thought that is not easily overcome. If regarding the chin
of events from the perspective of the lower level, that of the cells, the higher level and the
transfer into it seems to be unexplainable, it is impossible to concretize for the cells and that
is a general experience. The presence of different levels of life is nonetheless something that
awakes many questions
In order to give a concrete form to the impossibility of a cell perspective upon the body, one
can as an intellectual experiment try to familiarize oneself with the situation of a cell, situated
in its context within a body, for example an eye. I have chosen my example from normal
bodies; it is difficult to give a concrete form to something within such an incomplete body as
the slug. The cell has its very restricted and local task; it obeys the instructions from the
superior function, i.e. its programming. It is not able to have an apprehension of the context
where it has its task, not about the outer world, not even that an outer world exists. Its
apprehension is restricted to the phenomena of the cell world. And, if it, e.g. due to a mutation
should loose its altruism and become selfish; the whole coherence of the body would appear
to be meaningless and maybe hostile.

That it all does not seem to be in agreement with the doctrine of evolution appear to be
obvious, or rather, it is a question of phenomena that are not being considered by this doctrine.

The behaviour of the cells does thus not agree with Darwinism; here it is a question of a jump
in the development that is incommensurable with that theory. Accept then that exception from or addition to the doctrine of evolution by restricting its validity to biological individuals,
directly subjected to the environmental pressure!
For individuals in the process of forming a body and for individuals in a body other laws are
apparently other laws valid.

Different experiments that have been performed in order to solve the problem of body
forming assume as something obvious that it is a question of a continuum – a continuous
development from simple collections of cells to functioning bodies. In that case there is no
need for the concept of altruism, which does not belong to the doctrine of evolution. My
starting point is that selfish cells can not form a selfish body, if first not their selfishness has
been eliminated. They must in other words first become altruistic. Altruism as an inescapable
element of life does not belong to the doctrine of evolution and my claim constitutes therefore
a departure from it. But the basic selfishness of life is not questioned, which can easily be
shown.

I test a hypothesis, a guess among many; perhaps this can simplify the equation. The slug is
obviously beginning its development from zero and its situation is therefore maybe
comparable to that of the hypothetic first molecule, as one would imagine it. Its properties are
the reproductive ability and selfishness. All that has thereafter been developed can be derived
from those properties and from the interaction of the first molecule’ with the environmental
pressure; all abilities which are required in order to survive.

One can approach the problem by investigating what the phase-one cells are loosing in
connection with the level rise and what is originally characterizing the slug of phase two; i.e.
which properties that have been eliminated with the individual phase-one cells and which
properties that have arisen in the common body. It is obviously the reproduction that is now
managed by the slug on behalf of the cells and selfishness, which is characterizing the slug,
the cells simultaneously being altruistic.

These are the properties that can be supposed to have characterized the hypothetic ‘first
molecule’. The new specimen on a higher level than the cells has to begin from the same
situation as the ‘first molecule’, hence from zero and the cells are now only important as
constituents and instruments of the body.

The cells are physically unchanged.. It is in connection with the level rise only a question of a
“change of attitude”. What later undergoes a change is only their behaviour.

Ordinary properties do not change momentarily; they are stable on the short or the long run
and can become changed among others due to the environmental pressure. Selfishness and
altruism, however, can not be counted among these ordinary properties that can become an
object to a development. Here it is a question of a transition from a free state at a lower level
to another, controlled state at a higher level. That a change of state takes place momentarily
and not through a successive development demonstrates that it is not a question of ordinary
properties.

The selfish slug hence exists on a higher level than the selfish cells of phase one. It is not in
any case a question of a transfer of properties from the cells to the slug. “The active force”,
whatever it is, has created a genuine identity. The cells still have their identity as cells, but
they have lost their selfishness; they are altruistic, controlled by the superior function. The
cells have made over to the slug to resolve the reproduction problem and can no more exist separately. There is no turning back and they have only one task, to obey the orders of the
slug.

This model can be imagined to be effective for the slime molds, living in a territory, and with
the same signification but realized in other ways it can be assumed to be valid in other cases
of body forming.

Chapter 5

As I have described earlier, the territory population of the selfish slime molds, consisting of
biological individuals, after the level rise into an altruistic state and re forming a slug that is a
biological individual and, hence selfish.

Hence, the selfish cells in the territory are thus being replaced by a selfish slug. One would
express it that the sum of selfishness during that level rise is constant. But something
analogue would also be said about the altruism of the cells of phase two: the sum of altruism
of the slug cells can possibly be assumed to be equal to the selfishness of the slug but of
opposite value. (The problem is then only that it is difficult to think of any method th
quantitatively measure selfishness respectively altruism.).

That would maybe be expressed more generally: The selfishness of every biological
individual can be assumed to balance the altruism of all its parts. An evident conclusion of
that would be that altruism without a corresponding selfishness could not exist and vice versa.
Totally, the reasoning would imply an image of balance. And according to my reasoning,
altruism should be an equally essential part of nature as selfishness. It is an inevitable part of
the construction of every biological individual.

- * -

An effort to make definitions

• Selfishness is a necessary property of biological individuals on every level.

• Altruism, or its equivalent, of cells of normal bodies, is a necessary property of nonbiological
individuals of every level and that belongs as parts to a biological individual
of higher order and which are ruled by its superior function. These non-biological
individuals are only indirectly subject to the environmental pressure, mediated by the
biological individual of higher order.

- * -

The hypothesis of equilibrium between selfishness and altruism gives an opportunity to
further develop the conceptual understanding of what happens in the interval between phase
one and phase two. One may assume that as the latent altruism is growing within the territory
population, on the higher level latent selfishness is growing simultaneously with the new
selfish identity
When the collapse of the cells has become total and their selfishness thereby has been set to
zero, a change will take place. The new, selfish identity will be established on the higher level
and the cells become altruistic and ruled. The level rise has been completed.

Hence, the latent altruism can not be regarded isolated from the corresponding latent
selfishness on the higher level; that follows from the equilibrium hypothesis. Here equilibrium
must rule.

It is hence the fundamental properties of the cell, selfishness and the reproductive ability that
arise on the higher level. But it only the fundamental properties, the properties of the
hypothetical “first molecule” that prevail; everything else that has been added during the
development of the cell, e.g. the territory period, remain at the cell during the level rise. At the
slime molds is hereafter the behaviour successively being changed. The slug begins from zero
as I have mentioned earlier and it creates the properties of its own, which the cells are unable
to perceive.

Chapter 6

It is just during the change between the phases that it seems not to be in accordance with the
doctrine of evolution that the process begins, which is resulting in a level rise.
Before this the cells are biological individuals and are subjected to the environmental pressure.

After this they have disappeared from the “world of Darwin”. They now belong to a closed
system as parts of a body and are altruistic.

- * -

The two phases exist more or less independently of each others. One may think that the
superior function, which is affecting the behaviour of the cells in phase two and the
development of the slug body as well, also is influencing the whole development of the slime
molds, hence also over the territory population of free cells in phase one, but that can not be
the case. The two stages, represented by the cells in phase one and the slug in phase two
respectively, belong to two different levels; the two phases are existing independently of each
others, though through interaction, in order not to disturb the balance between the phases.
Hence, an indirect interaction takes place, an interaction that is keeping the territory within
the boarders, which can be accepted by the superior function in phase two. What is negative
to this is damaging the whole process and can not continue to exist. A corresponding situation
is existing for phase one.

The course of events can be demonstrated using a figure that is showing the development
during one generation cycle, from cell to territory and signal and to slug and spore release.

The behaviour of the biological individuals in phase one is affected only by the environmental
pressure, not by the superior function in phase two. Only the slug cells are affected by its
superior function. The behaviour that is being developed at the cells in phase two can only be
manifested within that phase. It can also be different forces and phenomena within the same
environmental pressure that are affecting the different phases. The territory is a development
unity, which through the level rise is kept separated from the next development unity, the slug.

- * -

The slime molds are not being split up after the level rise. That causes the slug development
not to differ from that of normal bodies. The physical nature of the cells is very likely not
being changed after the signal; they are suited to the life in the territory. The slug body is built
up by the existing cells.

Earlier stages of the change of the behaviour of the cells will presumably be eliminated, when
new, more adequate behaviours arise. When the slug is being created, it happens due to the
actual ways of behaviour and no correspondence to the fetus development of normal bodies
can hence be observed here.

One can imagine that the slug body is represented by an “inner plan” within the programming
of the cells.

The activity of the slug presupposes certain simple functions, different in different parts of the
slug. According to the hypothesis of mine, the cells master all existing functions of the slug
and are activating those of its behaviours that correspond to the position they occupy in th
slug after the level rise.

Therefore, the formation of the slug occurs rapidly and without roundabouts.
That is all what the superior function seems to be able to accomplish, given a certain number
of identical cells.

Chapter 7

When the slug body has been built up it constitutes a biological individual and is reacting
upon the environmental pressure. How are the cells being ruled by the superior function, i.e.
how is its “will” mediated to the cells?

In normal bodies the influence of the superior function is mediated by chemical feedback,
chemical signals of different kind among others.

Within the slug there can hardly exist such in a developed manner. It is difficult for me to
imagine that the slug would be able to develop any simple function that would correspond to
functions of normal bodies, but I can neither exclude it.

It is hopeless for me to try to come any further in the discussion and to establish any scenarios
concerning the slime molds. I have to restrict myself to state that the operation control from
the superior function is functioning through some chemical or other communication that in
turn causes the slug to continue its simple program.

Even the reactions of the cells upon the communication of the superior function ought to be
investigated. There must be something that at the slime molds is substituting the management
of normal bodies. Which force is activated? How are the cells being activated?
As a hypothesis I can propose e.g. the following: At the cells maybe such a force can have
been established in connection with the level rise and the transition into altruism. The
example with Bettelheims prisoners may point to a part of the answer. When their situation
became catastrophic they abandoned their selfishness and became altruistic. They were
captured by an euphoric feeling in that they gave up all their private concerns and that feeling
sufficed in just that case as long as the catastrophic situation endured. A correspondence to
that feeling on an elementary, almost molecular level can have developed among the cells and
became activated in connection with the operation control by the superior function. This
hypothetic euphoria on the molecular level may be the “reward” the superior function is using
in order to manage the cells. (Cf. Ch. 11). The both examples seem to that extent similar due
to their basic elements that maybe one has to search for the explanation in that direction.
Our activities we use to describe in terms of behaviour, even though it is obvious that
everything has an outermost ground. It would be considered meaningless by us to search for
the molecular biological connections in human actions. It is therefore, according to my
opinion, not wrong to describe cell activities in connection with level rises in terms of
behaviour as long as their behaviour can be discerned and judged. I think that this is possible
just with respect to the level rising activities of the slime molds. Therefore I have made some
intellectual experiments starting from their hypothetic feelings and consciousness.

The degrees of freedom of these cells are a necessary prerequisite for meaningful intellectual
experiments to be performed. The functions of normal bodies on the contrary can not be
elucidated similarly through feeling insight or observation and the reason is that everything
occurs conformable to law, without degrees of freedom.

Which conditions are valid for the relationship between the cells and the superior function?
As a hypothesis one might think of the functions of the cells as divided into an external and an
internal side, which does not mean that those parts shall be regarded as physically apart, but
with respect to their functions. This division can facilitate the understanding of how the slug
is ruling the cells.

The external part of the slug includes these reactions upon the environmental pressure. At the
external part of the cells the environmental pressure is being replaced by the rule the superior
function is performing. How about the internal side of the slug then? To this I count the
communication that takes place to the external part of the cells.

When I am talking about “rule” and “actions”, it is of course a question of programmed
courses. That can become changed over time according to the doctrine of evolution.

Because the system includes degrees of freedom one can allow an intellectual experiment
concerning the consciousness of of cells and bodies. That hypothetical consciousness would
be thought of as existing within the external part of the slug and be due to the environmental
pressure. Besides, in that case also a corresponding consciousness would exist with respect to
the impulses from the superior function of the slug.

The cells perceive the slug only through its rule, its “orders” which they perceive as instincts.

Any apprehension of the slug as such, or of the outer world with respect to the slug, is not
conceivable by the cells.

The contact between the slug and the cells is one-way, from the slug to the cell. Contacts in
the opposite direction are not possible, since the slug belongs to a higher level.

The relationship between the external and the external parts of the slug and the cells
respectively can be visualized through the aid of Picture 5. The whole lapse is contained
within every cell, but by practical reasons it must be recorded with the slug and the cells
separated.

In the picture it has been marked that the communication is one-way.

Chapter 8

The slime molds are during the first phase a territory of selfish cells and that stage endures
until a situation, when a catastrophe situation is creating an opportunity for a level rise.
The cells become altruistic and they become ruled by the superior function of the body. After
the level rise the cell division ceases.

According to the hypothesis of mine, after the level rise there are at the cells of normal bodies
not the same situation at hand as at the slime molds. Any division of cells does not take place
at that stage. Here there is occurring a development of the same kind as at the slime molds.
Different modes of behaviour are being developed, depending on the position of the cells
within the body. As is the case with the slime molds, all cells are mastering the same set of
behaviours.

Accordning to my hypothesis, these behaviours are the origin to the different subprograms
that, after the DNA has begun functioning, together are forming a complete body during the
fetus development of normal bodies.

From Bonner [9] I have picked up that the very first stage of the development at animal fetii
are characterized by a period, when the different parts of the embryo have the same potential.
And Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger [20] write the following: “If examining the surface
of the perikaryon (cell body) carefully, one can observe that almost no cell looks lika any
other.” This is what is used to be called cell division. Up to a number of eight, they are all
similar and do all the same thing. “How does then every cell then know what it shall become
and to which organ of the body it shall belong? Herein is still one of the great mysteries of life
embedded…” (I am here citing the text. It has since 1990 been shown that the number of cells
usually is 16).

The level rise of normal bodies is likely occurring momentarily, as well as in the case of the
slime molds, but that is not equally observable. What has caused the level rise of normal
bodies is difficult to know.

This territory phase of the slime molds, with numerous cells, corresponds in the case of
normal bodies apparently to a few cells before their level rise. I am here referring to the figure
in chapter 6. What I believe I have succeed in explaining with respect to the slime molds in
phase one ought - in spite of the differences in the other respects- to be applicable upon the
few cells of the normal bodies during phase one until the level rise. Phase one constitutes a
lower level than phase two and the cells of phase one are biological individuals and, hence,
object to the environmental pressure. Furthermore, in both cases holds that the cells before the
level rise are identical and both contain the whole program for the following body formation.
At the slime molds it does therefore not take place any cell division after the level rise and the
body formation does not use identical cells and these can neither be physically changed after
the level rise. A change of the physical status of the cells is, as far as I can understand,
possible only in the case of cell division ruled by the DNA. By this reason it is only
behaviours that can be developed here. According to the hypothesis of mine, all the cells have
in their program a common pool of the behaviours required for the different parts of the slug.
The program can be thought of as an inner plan for the build up of the slug according to which
the cells are enforcing the different behaviours that are being needed in the different states of
the slug. As Ardray writes: “Around a founder cell others will bunch in a growing aggregate,
clinging together until they have formed a sausage-shaped slug visible to the naked eye”[6]
and these have become
its simple functions. The whole development has gone very
fast.

- * -

The following discussion is intended to clarify the comparison between the different bodies:
A population is a necessary prerequisite for a level rise, since it means that an amount of
lower organisms is forming a higher organism ruled by a superior function. Therefore in
normal bodies first some cell divisions must occur in order to let a population arise that can
perform a level rise. The minimal amount of cells in a population will therefore be two, which
I find is lowest possible. In that case we know that it is a question of about eight cells within
the population of normal bodies before the cell differentiation.

That means that at the starting point for the level rise it is a conformity between the slug case
and the normal case – the level rise of both of them is beginning with a population of normal
cells that all is carrying the whole program.

Why must the eight cells be identical, not only in a physical sense, but also with respect to the
program? Yes, the starting point is a cell that is carrying the whole program. In connection
with the cell divisions that thereafter have occurred during faze one there is no opportunity for
those eight cells to have been differentiating themselves with respect to the program, since
they belong to phase one and there they can not have been involved in the program that has to
be realized after the beginning of the level rise (cf. picture in chapter 6). Hence, all the eight
cells are carrying the whole program after the level rise. But each of them can only fulfil some
parts of it, just as the slime molds have whole their behaviour program but can only fulfil the
parts that are corresponding to their position on the future body.

Here it is a question of a situation that with respect to its consequences corresponds to the
“clinging” slime molds that from its total program is activating the behaviours, which is being
required at every position on the future slime mold. That shows that in those respects there
would be an analogy present between the both systems for body formation, implying that the
eight cells chose to fulfil different parts of the total program. The answer to the question that
was being cited above – “How does then every cell know what it shall become---“ would then
be: Before the level rise the cell does not know what it shall become. That is being decided
after the level rise..

The eight cells are then in the same situation as the population of slime molds were after the
level rise, but the continuation must be different due to the different preconditions. The
difference is among others that the eight cslle now is beginning a long development through
cell division, ruled by the DNA in chronological order.

For both the slug and the normal body it seems to hold that they are beginning with a selfish
cell, that the body formation is initiated from a population of selfish cells and that the final result is a body on a higher level. And so it is working not only the first time. It is being
repeated in every new generation; always this change at the cells from selfishness into
altruism (or chemical operation control) in connection with the body formation. The
participating cells are responsible for the level rise under the influence of the development
forces and they are biological individuals; after that they are included in a selfish body and are
being ruled by a superior function and they are altruistic or chemically managed.

Chapter 9

In the books I have had access to I have searched for data about different trhories about body
formation.
In the book by Stephen jay Gould, ‘The Panda’s Thumb’ [13], 1987, the author is studying the
genesis of multicellularity at animals. But it appeared that the problem that was dominating
his essay was the origin of different animals and relationship. Very little is mentioned about
different theories about how multicellularity may have arisen.

According to Gould [14] there are only two established scenarios for body formation, but
regrettably neither has been treated exhaustively. In the first scenario, called “the melting”,
one group of protist cells were brought together. They began to live as a colony, developed a
division of labor and developed finally an integrated structure.

In the second scenario, called “the section”, there arose cell departments within one sole
protist cell. (A third conceivable scenario, repeated inability at the daughter cells to part after
the cell division, has nowadays few proponents.)

I have not been able to comment the above as I am lacking the relevant knowledge. But I can
barely believe that the problem body formation would be solved according to these guidelines.

- * -

In ‘The Ideas of Biology’ by John Tyler Bonner, p. 25[10], the transformation into
multicellularity. “Why did single-celled organisms become multicellular? Why is it, if some
groups found the unicellular existence so permanently advantageous, that all groups did not
stick to it? The answer probably lies in the matter of the increase in size. Larger organisms
can do things that are not possible for smaller ones; they live in different ways, and by
becoming large a new world with new opportunities opens up. (…)”

Among the living multicellular organisms we find an abundant variety of different and from
each others separated endeavours to increase the size.

That is interesting but does it not mean that the transformation to multicellularity also is being
urged on by these efforts for larger size; behind the transformation into multicellularity there
are presumably other causes.

Bonner describes further additionally on p. 121[11]: “Put in another way this means that
originally a multicellular organism was a collection of unicellular organisms that were
physically attached, but eventually, through selection and the need of improved efficiency of
function, the division of labor became marked so that the individual cells were no longer
separate organisms but part of a new, larger, and more complex organism. If one were to examine cell colonies that exist today among the algae, the protozoa, and other aberrant
groups, one would find every intergradation from groups of individual unicellular organisms
that seem accidentally stuck together to well-integrated yet primitive multicellular organisms.

This kind of observation leads to the old question of what is an individual, and the answer
seems to be that there is no sharp division line between a group of cell individuals merge to
form a true multicellular individual; there is a continuum between the two extremes.”
On p. 28 [8] Bonner writes: “The more successful method of increase in size is to have a
series of cells stuck together in a true multicellular organism. But even this can be done a
number of ways: the cells can divide and the daughter products fail to separate, or there can
be an aggregation of separate cells. Only the former has given rise to higher animals and
plants while the latter is found, for instance, in a curious group of organisms called the
cellular slime molds. Here amoebalike cells grow first, and these aggregate into cell masses
after they have finished feeding.”

He thereafter describes the following process that strikingly resembles the behaviour of the
slime molds of Ardray.

Any viewpoints upon the causes behind the body formation is not being given, except for the
striving for increased size respective a development regarded as passing continuously from
simple cell clusters into primitive multicellular organisms.

- * -

The statements that Dawkins has recorded give more motivated explanations to the body
formation.

In “The Selfish gene” [16] is among others following stated: “Both animals and plants
evolved into many-celled bodies, complete copies of all the genes being distributed to every
cell. We don not know when, why, or how many times independently, this happened.”

Some authors use to use the parallel with a colony and are naming the body a cell colony.
Dawkins himself prefers to think of the body as a gene colony and the cells as comfortable
and practical working units serving the chemical activities of the cells.

Even though the organisms are gene colonies, they have undisputedly attained their own
individuality with respect to their behaviour. An animal moves as a coordinated whole, as a
unity.

The selection has favoured such branches that are cooperating with others. The intensive
competition must have rewarded central coordination rather than anarchy within the common
body. Nowadays the intricate, mutual co-development between the genes has gone so far that
it is no more possible to identify the individual machine of survival due to its collective
properties. Practically, it is generally most comfortable to approximately regard the individual
body as something that “tries” to increase the amount of all its genes for future generations.
And in “The Blind Watchmaker’ [18]: “It seems that, once the eukaryotic cell had been
invented, a whole new range of designs became possible. Most interestingly from our point of
view, cells could manufacture large bodies comprising many billions of cells”.

“A major step in evolution was taken when cells that had been produced by successive
splittings stuck together instead of going off independently. Higher-order structure could now
emerge,…”[19]

- * -

When reading the accounts of Dawkin I find rather much worthy commenting. The constant
picture is that the development from cell to body is described as free from conflicts, almost
always occurring almost by itself.

The idea of a cell colony is very close and seems to be the closest one can come concerning
the active forces within a body. The word ‘cell colony’ gives an apparent impression of clarity.

But it is impossible to derive sufficiently strong forces from the colony concept that are able
to account for development and reproduction. A colony is a phenomenon that is lacking a
suffient identity of its own.

Proposals to replace the concept ‘cell colony’ with ‘gene colony’ are a track that can lead
wrong. The cells are something more than working units for the chemical activities of the
genes. It is the cells and not the genes that are actively being involved in the level rise process.

The obvious starting point for the solution of the problem of body formation has been the
doctrine of evolution. Therefore it is often being spoken about that the selection has favoured
genes that are cooperating with others and that the intensive competition has favoured central
coordination to anarchy within the common body.

That there exist cells and bodies everybody knows. It seems therefore natural so imagine that
“it only happens” when a body is forming. The problem is not visible.

The hypothesis of cell colonies is hence not completely satisfying; it does not contain any
explanations why, it is only question of giving a name, a heading to an unexplained
phenomenon.

Any hypothesis about how the body formation might have come about is accordingly not t be
found in the account by Dawkins, but only notions about cell colonies and an effort to apply
the doctrine of evolution upon the problem of body formation. But that way is, as I have
shown earlier, not practicable.

Chapter 10

In chapter 4 I had not been successful in defining what was causing the level rise, even though
I had described the course of events rather clearly. It seemed mysterious and I had therefore
used the formulation “some unknown force” and “the active force, whatever it was”.

I had not been able to concretize the phenomenon and I was at that moment unable to see the
“simple” explanation that there were some inherent properties of populations that brought
about the level rise. Even though I had been able to localize the effect, it is not for that sake
less difficult to explain.

- * -

I have given account for three cases of body formation. The first example was the temporary
level rise that prisoners of Bettelheim experienced, as they had been subject to a catastrophe
threat. That sudden level rise that was manifested by their ‘almost orgiastic’ feeling of
happiness endured as long as the threat persisted. According to my point of view, the
experience of the prisoners implied the origin of a temporary “body” with a temporary
superior function.

This kind of events is very likely not rare in the nature among populations facing an imminent
threat and the reaction may possibly have the effect that the population is being saved. Thus
far it is a trivial, generally applicable phenomenon. Any permanent body formation is not
possible here but it is important to state that the reactions of the prisoners correspond to the
opening part of the body formation that is being described in chapter 3.

From the example above it is also shown that the options for a population to transform into a
higher level is not dependent of genetic identity of its members. Instead, it is a prerequisite for
a permanent body formation.

The two other cases are only concerning permanent body formation. Even here it seems to
exist the same starting point as for the prisoners at the start of their temporary body formation:
a population facing an imminent threat of some kind.

These three examples would give rise to the hypothesis that populations get properties that go
beyond what specific individuals can perform. These can according to the doctrine of
evolution only perform selfishness and hence, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from
the properties of individual cells, as they belong to a population.

Individual members of a population would therefore under the influence of a catastrophe
situation be able to make a transition to an altruistic state at a higher level and with a superior
function that is ruling their behaviour. This is something new beyond the doctrine of evolution,
an opportunity that is being opened for life, a leap in the development.

That altruism is a consequence of the process of level rise. The selfishness of the recently
formed body must be balanced by the cells that become altruistic (cf. Chapter 5).

The opportunity of a level rise for populations, with the phenomena that follow, is not in
accordance with the doctrine of evolution; it may be regarded as an appendix.

There is a complication concerning the ability of populations for a level rise – they can not by
an effort of themselves make a transition to a higher level; it would be equivalent to lift
oneself in the hair.

The process seems to be unable to start if not first its members have been subject to a superior
pressure; the catastrophe threat is a necessary part of the process. It must therefore exist an
externally entering and of the population itself independent threat in order to trig the process.

That is an independent precondition for al level rise. Common for all the three cases is also
that the threat can not be eliminated through escape. The populations are not enclosed within
boarders of some kind that not without further notice can be forced.

In the case of Bettelheim’s prisoners it is the imprisonment within the camp that constitutes
the boarder and the behaviour of the matrons that is trigging the reaction. That reaction
implies the origin of a very temporary body. Any solution to their problem is not to be found
here. When the threat came to an end, everything was returning rapidly to the original state.
A necessary precondition for the appearance of a lasting body formation is that the
catastrophe threat can be repeated in all the following generations. This recurrence of the
catastrophes is an unavoidable link in the chain of events and is built in to the system of
lasting bodies. It seems to be balanced, hence disturbances are avoided.

What is happening during the initial phase in connection with normal body formation is
difficult to observe. As a hypothesis one might imagine that the boarder consists of the
membrane that is enclosing the first cell and within which even the cell division must take
place. After some cell divisions the situation becomes precarious and thus the catastrophe is
necessitates a level rise.

Of the membrane of normal bodies were to get weaker or stronger disturbances would arise
and if it should disappear no body formation at all would take place.

Among the slime molds the catastrophe occurs according to my opinions when the
nourishment of the cells has been consumed and the individual cells are unable to exceed the
boarder of the territory. By this means there is for every generation being created a
catastrophe situation.

Concerning the slime molds, I have in chapter 6 made an effort to describe how the boarders
between the two phases in the process can be kept stable through reciprocal action between
them. If the gaseous barriers would be changed that would give rise to disturbances in the
process of body formation.

- * -

That the body formation would be enforced in every new generation due to some, for the
population a such, unfamiliar phenomenon, that would hence constitute a part of the answer to
the mystery of body formation. It all seems quite peculiar, almost offensive for the thought,
but I have not been able to conceive any other explanation.

Every population hence seems to have the inherent property that it in the case of an extreme
catastrophe situation and there an escape is impossible, can have the opportunity to start a
process, which in the first respect gives rise to a temporary body. This process is a necessary
first step leading to a permanent level rise, hence to the genesis of an individual on a higher
level of life and with a generation cycle.

- * -

What in a broad sense is happening during the level rise might be that the level rise first is
creating an inseparable unity of the cells and that is the prerequisite for the operation control
by the superior functions of the cells. Thereafter the superior function of the cells is forcing
the cells to surpass the boarder (the gaseous barriers and the membrane respectively).and
hence, the catastrophe situation has been set aside. That first action constitutes the beginning
of the generation cycle.

Before that the situation of the population is comparable to that of Bettelheim’s prisoners and
if the catastrophe threat in some way or another were to cease, the level rise would very likely
be interrupted and no body formation would take place.

Just the moment of overcoming the catastrophe threat might be the crucial moment. It is the
common action of the population on a higher level that is saving the situation and is
confirming the body formation.

Thereafter the cells are continuously being ruled by the superior function and they constitute
the instrument of the body.

The level rise and the overcoming of the catastrophe threat are genuine actions and not
something that depends of some “gene for a level rise” etc, and I assume that these crucial
actions do not leave any track within the DNA sequence.

The origin of life is assumed to be the hypothetic “first molecule”, the DNA molecule. It has
an important property, the reproductive ability. But only this property does not suffice. A
development into higher levels can be dependent of the inherent properties of the populations
and no such process can start by itself. There must be a catastrophe threat that does not have
any relation to the population as such. This seems to hold for at least eukaryote cells and
multicellular organisms.

Chapter 11

Altruism among biological individuals can not exist according to the doctrine of evolution.
Bute there are situations when a biological individual could be thought of acting apparently
altruistic, without being in conflict with that doctrine. It holds among others for cases when
somebody gives his life in order to save his relatives. Such a case would be possible, if it was
a question of saving two or more siblings or more than eight cousins. I such cases the genes
concerned have been represented among these relatives to a more than 100 5 extent and the
genes of his have thereby been compensated. From the viewpoint of the genes this is a
“selfish” action, since it increases the amount of the genes of the sacrificing in the following
generation.

But for an individual to sacrifice his life at all, is also required a reward. Bettelheim’s
prisoners were in another connection demonstrating that such a reward through its euphoria
that implied a temporary transfer to a higher level. (This case was valid not for genetically
close relatives, instead a temporary fellowship between non-relatives, see Ch. 10). Without a
reward this altruism would not have been realized, the possible knowledge about relatives or
genes of relatives being rescued does of course not suffice.

In the case of these relatives no such reward is being present, even though the genetic
preconditions are present and I have observed that nobody of those that have given an account
of the problem has given any example.

One has neglected that not only genes but individuals are involved on the life process. It is
only individuals that are sacrificing themselves (genes are unable to act) and therefore nothing
can happen provided no reward is present in the perspective. Just the necessity of a reward
points to the decisive role of the individual in situations like this.

- * -

I treat another scenario that can maybe give another perspective and a solution to the problem,
namely a case with a mother and three children. Those have each 50 % of the genes of their
mother. They are assumed to be subject to the same situation as that described above and the mother saves the children by sacrificing her own life. That the mother, contrary to the father
with the cousins in the analogue situation, has succeeded in her rescue situation apparently
depends on her action being followed by a reward.

If the scenario had been to save only one child, the mother would of course have sacrificed
her own life even for that goal that is apparent. The equation does not fit if looking at the case
from a gene point of view.

My hypothesis is that the phenomenon that is effective in the scenario with mother and child
is interconnected with the reproductive force. That is an original, genuine force that is existing
from the very beginning of life and it is the primary property of the original DNA molecule.
The reproductive force belongs to the same category as the phenomena that can appear among
populations is certain connections (ss chapter 10).

The both forces are genuine and have in common that they can enable an individual to act in
excess of her selfish ability.

That I call them genuine can be visualized through a comparison with the altruism that is
assumed to characterize “altruism genes”. That altruism is not assumed to act unconditionally
but instead at certain extent of gene compensation, namely when more genes than those of the
sacrificing own are being saved. A mother on the other hand that is subject to the reproductive
force is reacting even upon smallest possible cause, which in this case is one child.

Hence, it is the reproductive force that is effective in the mother-child case and that is the
explanation why it in that case can be a sacrifice and a reward. Its influence implies a
temporary level rise that is making the sacrifice possible.

That is explaining the reaction of the mother in the above scenario. But the corresponding
effect does not turn up, when only gene compensation is being involved in the process and
that is valid independently of the time the “altruism genes” have been allowed to work.

Why can not these genes make a sacrifice possible? I can here only refer to the definition of
the concept of altruism that is present in R. Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene” on p. 4[17]: “An
entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase
another such entity’s welfare at the expense of its own.”

Here one has chosen to see the phenomenon altruism as a property among others that could be
developed through for example mutations and changes of the environmental pressure but has
not otherwise imagined altruism in any meaningful context. Altruism according to that
definition can not enable sacrifices of the own life, since it has no connection with the genuine
forces that can enable an individual to sacrifice his own life.

Chapter 12

I have often been reflecting upon the concept of valuation neutrality as a scientific principle
and I have had a feeling that it could not check in all connections.

Among others that principle has as a consequence that the concept altruism has been lacking
validity. It has therefore often been talked about “apparent altruism”. Yet, most people can by
themselves imagine real altruism or at least experience it through the literature. Without
questioning I took it as evident that real altruism must exist.
When I got the idea to explanation of body formation it was based upon the description of the
behaviour of prisoners in a catastrophe situation by B. Bettelheim and by a suddenly
appearing memory of the slime molds of R. Ardray that were joining in a body. My first
thought had been that this idea would give me an argument against the validity of the
valuation neutrality as a scientific principle.

- * -

Thus far has, as far I can understand, the continuity of the development of life not been
questioned. That appears among others through different theories for body formation, e.g. the
colony theory: “If one would go through all the cell colonies that exist today, one would find
examples of all intermediate stages, from groups of unicellular organisms, ---, to well
integrated but yet primitive, multicellular organisms. Between the both extremes a continuum
reigns (see chapter 9).

Now I recall a formulation by S. J. Gould [15]. Here it was a question about a geological
problem but I imagine that there can be some scientific principle at the bottom: “But they held
firm to the dogma that catastrophic causes must never be invoked so long as any gradualist
alternative existed.”

Regarding the problem of body formation I do not believe that any gradualist alternatives can
have any success.

- * -

The phenomenon of level rise has a decisive importance, since with this concept it has been
shown that life is existing discontinuously, at delimited levels, and that fact get consequences
in different respects.

Before the level rise the cells are biological individuals and directly being subject to the
environmental pressure but after that they have disappeared from the “world of Darwin”.

Their state can not be explained by the doctrine of evolution and they are living in a closed
world.

The slug starts from zero and it creates its own properties and functions that the cells are
unable to seize. These cells are now the building stones of the body and instruments.
The situation in a body would therefore appear to be unexplainable for the individual cell and
I have tried to show that through a scenario in chapter 4.

The cells conceive the slug only through its operation control. Any apprehension bt the cells
of the slug as such or of its outer world is not imaginable.

- * -

What I here am going to bring up is what happens at the boarder to a higher level. Such a
boarder I have described in chapter 3, see pictures 1-3.

Here two “ideologies” with regard to the cells are standing against each other, selfishness in
phase one and altruism in phase two, the lower level against the higher and a situation of
choice situation may be conceivable among the cells within the territory.

These cells are situated in a situation that can be described in terms of behaviour and one may
as an intellectual experiment regard the cells as being consciously acting – in the reality of the
cells one may instead view it as an unconscious game of probabilities.

I have an old left over scenario that may fit here:
In the development process of the type of the slime molds and before it has achieved the first
level rise it is a question about two systems that are weighing against each other. At the
transition between these two forms of existence, just at the boarder moment both the systems
are at hand simultaneously and a situation of choice seems to be at hand for the cells.

This situation invites unsought to an intellectual experiment, where the cells are to be
imagined as conscious and able of speculating over their situation.

Their selfish live is comfortable and predictable and therefore they do not want to see any
change. They can not imagine altruism to be possible, they are only viewing a change as
negative and it seems to be frightening.

But if there were not to occur any change they would finally be lost. The become now
conscious of their value conflict between remaining within the comfortable vegetative state or
to accept the altruistic state and make the jump out to the unknown.

Here are hence two alternative ways of action, which may give rise to reflections. The one
leads to a level rise and the other to stagnation. There is no space for any value neutrality
among the cells in this situation. The system that leads to development would therefore maybe
have precedence? Not accepting that leads to stagnation and to refrain from development and
hence, from increased opportunities for survival.

Whether the one expedient is better than the other I refrain from having any opinion about.
Since values always have to be given with respect to a situation of election and my function
here is to be the neutral observer. But it is plausible that the cells, if they were able of
reflecting, would use the concept “better” and “worse” about the two alternatives,
If the cells in such a situation would try to decide to become altruistic, it would yet be
impossible. They would not be able to become altruistic, even if they wanted to be it.

- * -

If life were to be existing as a continuum, the situation that was being treated in that scenario
would never have been able to happen and a choice between different alternatives, a higher an
a lower level, would be excluded for the cells.

It is the occurrence of different levels, the very discontinuity of life that is creating values.

When there within a certain population exists a latent altruism, the choice between two
opportunities is thereby been brought to the fore and the concepts higher and lower, better and
worse, assume validity.

- * -

Wit the starting point in the eukaryote cells I can imagine three levels: eukaryote cells, bodies
and insect societies (see chapter 3).

These three levels are constructed in different ways, depending on their different “technical”
opportunities to function and carrying out the reproduction.

Bodies seem to me to be more loosely constructed than cells. The third level, insect societies,
are too undeveloped in order to be a basis for further a level and may therefore be regarded as
a natural end point in the series.

- * -

Here I proceed from the world of the cells to that of ours. For cells to be able to conceive a
higher level is completely excluded. That body is impalpable to the cells. And the
corresponding is of course valid or us but it is not the eventuality of a level rise that I shall be
treating here. What I am discussing is only the state in which the concepts higher and lower
values spontaneously are being conceived of as valid, which is an indication of an election
situation.

But that does not necessarily mean that a higher level is realizable. There is no opportunity to
beforehand decide whether a level rise is to take place, since it is not hereditary in the sense to
be caused by genes; it is instead a question of an election between two opportunities or “an
unconscious playing for probabilities”.

- * -

The precondition for the neutrality of values is that life can bethought of as existing in a
continuum. In such a world there can apparently not exist any election situation between two
levels as a starting point for values. In a world that is presumed to exist without any sharply
distinct levels the neutrality of values is therefore a natural and maybe inevitable consequence.

The neutrality of values means among others also that the concept of altruism is lacking
validity and it gets also that consequence, when altruism is anyway being observed that it for
example gets the denomination ”apparent altruism”. There is simply no place for real altruism
within the very idea of the world within natural sciences.

Earlier I have shown that this concept has a validity as it is an essential and inescapable part
of life (see chapter 5) and that the occurrence of the concepts of higher and lower values are
interconnected with the fact that life is existing within delimited levels.

- * -

One can not imagine a higher level than that where one oneself is existing. Hence must follow
that no certain statements about that higher level are possible. It can not be observed by
natural sciences but the opportunities of a thinkable such higher level can neither be denied.